" Adliya Ke Androoni Mamlaat Mein Wafaqi Hukoomat Inquiry Commission Nahi Bana Sakti. ."
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 I would like to talk about the Commission of Inquiry Act 2017.
00:08 The Federal Government can make a Commission in the Inquiry Act 2017.
00:13 And it can make a Commission in such cases where an inquiry is necessary,
00:18 where the judges have to go physically or in a situation which is very contentious.
00:25 It is more of on the administrative side or on some contentious other side.
00:32 It does not involve matters of serving judiciary.
00:36 There is no concept of commission for serving judiciary.
00:41 Are you trying to say that tomorrow there can be a position where a judge takes a case against the government
00:51 and the government can make a judicial commission under 2017 act on the pretext of the same judge.
01:00 And it can say that this is the judge who has taken up this case.
01:04 In reality, it is not like that.
01:06 And it can put its officers in the office and take a decision as per its convenience.
01:16 And then it can defame the judges.
01:18 It can say that the judges will have security of tenure or it can say that this is the constitutional protection of judges
01:23 that they become under a commission.
01:25 I am sorry, this is not even a legal concept of commission to regulate the matters of serving judiciary.
01:33 Our constitution is there.
01:35 Judges are protected by the constitution of the High Court and Supreme Court.
01:39 And they have the right to file a case against them.
01:49 It is there in article 175(3) of the constitution.
01:51 You can hear it in article 184(3) of the constitution.
01:56 You can sit with two senior judges and see if this case is valid or not.
02:02 The whole country has been receiving this letter since the last day.
02:09 And it has come from judges whose character no one can point out.
02:11 These judges are from Balochistan, Province of Sindh, KPK and Islamabad.
02:21 Are the judges working in different cities of the country saying wrong things about everyone?
02:27 And they are not narrating even one incident. They are narrating so many incidents.
02:32 This was a matter of judiciary.
02:34 Judiciary should have been kept to itself.
02:36 Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa Sahib made a very wrong decision in my opinion that he went there.
02:43 He came to the full court and majority judges consensus.
02:48 I will praise one Qazi Sahib that he has given 40 years of Supreme Court's decision
02:53 and he has been rejected twice in the Supreme Court.
02:57 He has been declared on a wrong basis.
02:59 Judges can make mistakes in the Supreme Court.
03:03 Maybe this is the reason or maybe it is something else.
03:07 He is talking about timing and whole.
03:09 He has caught the beard of serving judges in the hands of the commission.
03:15 Mr. Tassadar Jalani is a very good judge.
03:17 There is no doubt about it.
03:19 He has spent his time in a very non-controversial way as a judge of the Supreme Court.
03:25 His family is a very eminent family.
03:29 But this does not mean that the findings in the commission can affect our judiciary.
03:36 Because the main question is that six people have done this work with a lot of courage.
03:46 One more question that we are hearing is about timing.
03:49 Why is it being said at this time?
03:51 Why was it not said earlier?
03:53 Another is about the forum.
03:55 You have authority and you could have asked for it yourself.
04:00 So, this forum has been chosen wrongly.
04:03 This is also an objection.
04:05 He is taking advantage of the fact that most people will not read the pages written in English in a good legal language.
04:13 And he is succeeding in taking advantage of this.
04:16 In the letter, it is written that the judges were waiting for the decision to be made in the case of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.
04:24 Whether he made a mistake by taking a public stance or misconducted himself.
04:29 Because Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui had said that he had influence and he had met me.
04:36 And he said that our work will be ruined in two years.
04:39 So, after that, although there were other references pending against him and he could have been accused of using his excuse.
04:47 But as a warning and as a message, Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui was found guilty of putting such allegations on the government department,
04:59 which we like to call an institution, which you do not have evidence of.
05:03 And Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui kept saying that the proof is a preponderance of evidence and to decide who is more likely to speak the truth is the work of the Supreme Judicial Council.
05:16 I said what happened to me.
05:18 He was removed just by saying.
05:20 So when the decision of his case was made and the judge decided that he was not found guilty, he did not get a fair trial, he did not get a due process.
05:28 But the court of Aziz did not say that the allegations should be determined by a proper inquiry and they should be brought to their level.
05:38 So then the six judges wrote that we were waiting for this decision.
05:44 We did not get this guidance from this decision that if these things are happening to us, then we have no desire to suffer like Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.
05:53 But we also have a process of inquiry.
05:58 Give us more clarity on this.
06:00 You give us this clarity that what should we do and we are asking the judge.
06:04 The second thing is that this is a matter of timing and this letter came a few days after the decision of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.
06:10 And six judges will take a few days to develop consensus among them.
06:14 You see, the name of Mr. Mia Gul Hassan Aurangzeb is on the letter, but there is no signature.
06:19 There must have been some discussion after which Mr. Mia Gul must have decided not to sign, but he will also be involved in the initial action.
06:26 Okay, I have to take this further.
06:28 Your point is that Pakistan was not there in those days.
06:30 Yes, Pakistan was not there.
06:32 And see, and one more thing, you said the second thing.